Continuing with more
of our reader’s comments and our responses, and information about Royal
Skousen’s Critical Test Project and Webster’s monumental dictionary.
Red: The area of New England Joseph Smith grew up in and lived from
1805-1829; Blue: The area of New England Noah Webster grew up in and lived all
his life 1774-1843
It was the changes in spelling
and Americanization of pronunciation proposed by Webster in 1807 that has been
retained, with few exceptions, even today and preferred by most Americans. In
fact, he believed that “the New England style” of pronunciation was preferred
by Americans rather than the affected elegance of the English theater. “On this
continent,” Webster said, “the common man is the uncommon man,” basing his work
on what the yeoman (common man) preferred and desired, he made it clear that
the American common man was not the illiterate peasantry of England, but masters of their own persons, freeholders,
and Lords of their own soil who could not only read and write and keep
accounts, they had considerable education and read newspapers every week.
At the time of the Book of Mormon publication, England spoke 30
dialects of English in an area 50,350 square miles, while Americans spoke 15
dialects in the original 13 colonies and occupied lands covering an area of
430,000 square miles. Most Englanders found it difficult to understand one
another, while most Americans could easily understand each other
"While in England, men separated
by short distances struggled to understand one another because of various dialects,
but in the extent of 1200 miles," Webster said, "Americans could universally understand
one another." Coupled with his belief in God and acceptance of Jesus Christ, to
which he often spoke and addressed his work, brought down upon him the judgments
of Harvard and the Boston professional community, which eventually led him to
move to Amherst, Massachusetts. He supported with great vigor the George Washington
administration, was a member of the Connecticut General Assembly for nine
sessions, member of the General Court of Massachusetts Legislature, was Director
of the Hampshire Bible Society and Vice-President of the Hampshire and Hampden
Agricultural Society, and helped secure permanent school funds in Connecticut
and Massachusetts.
Webster later founded Amherst
College in 1821, and while finishing his monumental American Dictionary at
Cambridge in 1825, found no English publisher interested in his scholarly work.
It was only in 1827, after putting up most of the cost himself, that he found
an American publisher for his work in which he added 12,000 words to the largest
dictionary known at the time. His dictionary traced the primary etymological meanings first in which he traced the origin of every word and through
the various branches and meanings.
It was the German
“Iron Chancellor” Otto van Bismarck who later ruefully remarked that “the most
significant event of the 20th Century will be the fact that the North Americans
speak English.”
Obviously, it cannot be said that
the language Joseph used in transcribing his translation was that of the
1500s and 1600s, which was “defunct” in his day.
3. Use of 131 instances of fully consistent
expressions, identical non-biblical citations from elsewhere in the text.
Let me answer this in
this way. The commissioning of the King James Bible took place in January 1604
at the Hampton Court Conference outside of London, where king James called a
conference. While the conference was a failure it lent emphasis for the need of
an English Bible. James worked out a compromise between the Church and the
Puritans, and appointed fifty-four learned men, who were to secure the suggestions
of all competent persons, that, as the king put it, “our said translation may
have the help and furtherance of all our principal learned men within this our
kingdom.” He laid out 15 instructions to the translators. While only
forty-seven of the men appointed are known to have engaged in it, they were
divided into six companies of 7 or 8 men each, two groups at Westminster, two
at Cambridge, and two at Oxford, with each group given a portion of the Bible,
i.e., the books were divided between the groups. Vigorous effort did not
actually get started until 1607, and when the translators had finished their
assigned work, a copy of their work was sent by each group from the three locations to London.
The public received
the first folio in 1611, and later that year the New Testament was printed and
in 1612 the first complete Bible appeared. This "Authorized Version"
never was authorized by royal proclamation, by order of Council, by act of
Parliament or by vote of Convocation. Whether the words "appointed to be
read in churches" were used by order of the editors, or by the will of the
printer, is unknown. The original manuscripts of this work are wholly lost, no
trace of them having been discovered since about 1655. On the other hand, it
was not until 1661, that the Epistles and the Gospels in the Prayer Book, were
changed, the authorized text superseding that of the Bishops' Bible. The Psalms
in the Prayer Book, from the "Bible of largest volume in English,"
have not been superseded to this day.
Thus, the King James
Version, which most of us use, was highly regarded, but was not an easy sell—it
took herculean effort and more than a single generation before it finally came
into the hands of most Englanders, and now most of the English-speaking
Christian World. However, when you have 47 men working on the same project,
each with powerful personalities, knowledge, beliefs and abilities, you are
going to have some errors and problems. One can find numerous errors within its
pages, erroneous doctrine and even inaccurate history; however, it is, overall,
the Bible we use “as long as it is translated correctly.”
Now we have an
individual and his team who are re-writing or revising the Book of Mormon
through his Critical Text Project. While once again, I am not criticizing the
work of these scholars and their efforts, it needs to be pointed out that man,
in and of himself, is simply not capable of rewriting scripture based on modern
knowledge, linguistics, and academics.
Take, for instance,
the numerous cases where Skousen wants to replant words because he does not
agree with the ones used in the original scribal text. First of all, Skousen
makes a big point that Oliver Cowdery, though a teacher of his day, did not know as much as we might think he
did and because of this, many times inserted or wrote down the wrong word
because of his lack of knowledge and understanding.
At the same time, it
needs to be pointed out that Skousen’s approach seems to leave a lot to be
desired. In his lectures on his work, which film can be found on the internet
of his discussions verbatim. In going over some of the words that are wrong
in the record according to Skousen, a few here are listed to show the
inaccuracy of his approach and findings:
1) Detect. Skousen claims this word is
inaccurately used in Helaman 9:17: “And
now behold, we will detect this man,
and he shall confess his fault and make known unto us the true murderer of this
judge.”
Skousen
claims the word should not be ”detect,” but should have been “expose” and
proposed changing the text since he claims in this case detect is a 1500-1600s
word and was archaic in 1829 at the time of the translation and would be the
wrong word to use.
However,
in checking Webster’s 1828 American
Dictionary of the English Language, which lists the words used in New
England in the early 1800s, which we have already pointed out is a list of
words in use in New England during Joseph Smith’s time, the word “detect” meant
to “uncover,” hence, to “discover,” and that “detect” was a word specifically used
to “discover secret crimes and artifices.” As Webster wrote: “We detect a
thief, we detect what is concealed, especially concealed by design.” Even
today, the word means “to discover or catch a person in the performance of some
act.”
Thus, the scripture
could read correctly “And now behold, we
will uncover this man and discover his secrets, and he shall confess his fault
and make known unto us the true murderer of this judge.”
On the other hand, the word "expose" that Skousen wants to use meant, in 1828, from the Latin meaning "to place," or "throw or thrust down." It conveyed the understanding of "making bare," "to remove from that which guards or protects," "to lay open to attack," "to lay open to censure," "to make liable," "to put in danger," etc., which is not the same meaning at all. Even today, "expose" means "to make something visible," "leave something uncovered," "make or leave someone open to attack." None of which correctly conveys the meaning of the passage in Helaman 9:17. It might also be noted, that even today, the word "detect" means "to discover or investigate a crime or its perpetrators," "to discern something barely perceptible," "to discover or catch a person in the performance of some act."
Obviously,
then, there is no error in the use of the original “detect,” the correct word was
used by Joseph Smith and written down by the scribe—Skousen is in error since the word “detect,” unlike “expose,” applied
specifically to uncovering the
concealment of the secrets regarding crimes and criminals—the meaning of
the passage in Helaman regarding the murder of the chief judge by the Gadianton
Robbers. It was not just the right word, it was the perfect word—and the correct word of Joseph Smith's day.
(See the next post, “The
Critical Text Project or Webster’s 1828 Dictionary: An Interesting Comparison-PtVI,”
for more of the reader’s comments and our responses, and information about
Royal Skousen’s project and Webster’s monumental dictionary, as well as comparing several words Skousen wants to change with their meaning and usage in Joseph Smith's time)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment